Jeff Morris wrote:

"Jim Cate" wrote in message
...


Sorry Jim, I though a sailor with your experience would know that a cubic

foot

of water is about 8 gallons. It only takes a few seconds to deduce that its
about 25 cubic feet (actually 26.7 cubic feet). You could also visualize a
water tank - the large one under my settee holds 80 gallons. Or you could
visualize 400 half gallon milk containers. Any way you do it, a "200 gallon
open cavity" is totally absurd.

What is your estimate, Jeff?



Its very telling that last week you ignored me when I've pointed this out,


(While I took time off to watch the Democratic Convention.)

and

now you're trying to sidestep it. This is one of your "ridiculous and

false"

claims, and of course you fighting tooth and nail to avoid confronting it.

BTW, the size of the cavity is more likely a few cubic feet - 6 inches wide

by 6

feet long by 1 foot draft would yield 3 cubic feet.

Jeff, I'm a registered patent attorney, I have over 20 hours of college
physics, 18 hours of Math, etc. I assure you that I'm capable of
converting gallons to cubic feet, cubic inches, cubic meters, cubic
centimeters, pounds, or whatever the hell else.


Obviously not, or you would have recognized immediately that "200 gallons" was a
completely bogus number. Do you really expect us to believe you took any
college physics or math when you claimed repeatedly that the centerboard trunk
was a 27 cubic foot cavity?



However, the size in
cubic feet isn't the real issue. (If you thin it is, check it out.) -
The issue from the above discussion related to whether or not the Mac
26M and 26X had the same hull, from the same female mold.


No Jim, that's not the issue. That may be the issue you had with others, but my
point is that you made an absurd claim, and then repeated it several times after
the absurdity was pointed out. You even denied that you ever made absurd
claims.

And during all that discussion about whether the two boats were actually
the same, you never admitted I was right regarding the fact that the
hull of the Mac 26M is different from that of the 26X, did you Jeff?
Because to do so would have cost you some brownie points with your buddies.


The real issue, Jeff, is that there is an extended open trunk cavity in
the Mac 25X that's not present in the Mac 25M. - My comments regarding
the cavity were submitted when I was challenged as to whether the hull
of the Mac 26M was the same as that for the Mac 25X. It's obviously not,
and to this day, you refuse to admit that I was right and others
attacking me were dead wrong regarding that issue.

Frankly, I think it the drag of the open trunk is nowhere near as high as you
claim, especially at the low speeds you sail, but that's a different issue.
Claiming its 27 cubic feet is just plain stupid.


Again, in the context of the discussion in which my note was posted,
time, the issue wasn't the degree of drag, but rather that it had been
claimed that the hull of the 26M was the same as that for the 26X. It
had been stated that they probably came off the same female mold. The
fact that the 26M doesn't have the open trunk and the 25X does is simply
one more example of the differences between the two hulls. - Yet you
still refuse to acknowlege that I was right and the others participating
in the discussion were wrong. - Shame, shame on you, Jeff. You put up a
diversionary smoke screen (telling everyone that I didn't figure the
volume in cubic feet) while ignoring the fact that I was fundamentally
right relative to the underlying context of the discussion.




Actually, of
course, the 26X differs in that it has a five-foot open trunk or cavity
extending along the chine of the hull and inducing substantial drag when
the rudder is down, out of the trunk. The hull of the 26M is obviously
different from that of the 26X, and the fact that it doesn't have the
five foot long open trunk extending along the chine of the hull is one
of the several obvious differences.


Sorry Jim, its not called a chine.


That's what the dictionary definition is, Jeff. But once more, you
ignore the substantive context of the discussion, and ignore the fact
that I was right concerning the fact that the hulls of the 26M and the
26X are different, by jumping down my throat about silly technical
issues such as this. If you were honest, Jeff, you would FIRST
acknowledge that I was basically right, and others were wrong, regarding
the original discussion relative to similarities and differences
between the two boats, and then comment regarding your latest "gotcha"
re such terminology

But, of course, intellectual honesty isn't on your list of top
priorities, is it Jeff?

Jim

Jim